Yeah maybe the wine. But no I wasn’t particularly saying the govt should allow more invasive questions. I was just saying it’s BS to set out some narrow lawyerly distinction between what you can ask and what you can’t, which is the current policy. Another poster linked to it somewhere above. Basically your first example question would be allowed, second one I believe not, third one definitely not though in common sense terms they are similar questions. But average people aren’t lawyers. In real life basically you’re allowed to politely ask about something or you’re not. The current policy IMO will generally be interpreted by every day business owners as ‘you better not ask’. And there are always ‘folks’ who do take offense at any and everything and call a lawyer and sue if they can. That’s the reality of American society now. I’m not proposing some big solution to it.
Other people have alluded to this, but I’ll outright say it: if this was in the US, that employee was way in the wrong.
There is no law on the books anywhere in the country that puts seeing eye dogs in a different category than other service animals.
Any dog that’s trained to provide a service to assist someone in compensating with a disability is on the same level & allowed inside that building–regardless of whether or not that service is eye sight related.
Rather than congratulating him, you should’ve reported him. Whether that particular dog was actually a service dog or not is wholly irrelevant–that particular employee has demonstrated a blatant disregard of the ADA. This time it was a dick without a service dog, but next time it may be someone with seizures or PTSD.
If this wasn’t in the US, then your country’s disability regulations are incredibly screwed up if you only view the blind as needing & being worthy of a service dog.